MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

I suppose it was inevitable that someone was going to try this. The folks who are screaming that Macs are too expensive (yet will stop at nothing from using OS X), will run to their nearest landfill, grab all the computer parts they can and cobble together some sad device. Then they will complain loudly that OS X sucks because it barely works.

Psystar keeps this up, they will be playing the monopoly card:

"Go to Jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200"

I remember (several years ago) about another "clone-maker" ... who made a liquid-cooled dual G4.. I think it was called Extreme Mac ... and they were operating out of ßweden (I think) ...
At any rate their business model was... they build the machines.. and you were responsible for buying the Mac OS...
Couldnt this work for these guys ?

Not going to buy an unknown computer from an unknown company.

Leopard pre-installed or not.

Risky risky risky.

So why isn't anything being done about the oil companies? What other "good" or "service" can be found on every street corner to power your vehicle? It's a monopoly in itself and has been for decades yet no one in politics or business seems to care. So why go after these little guys then? There are at least 3 major OS's out there you can run on your computer, Windows, OS X, and Linux.

I don't really see how they call it a mac clone... I mean ok, they will install leopard on it and it has the compatible hardware for that but seriously...Does it really look anything like something apple would design? It does look better than a lot of those insanely ugly alienware PC boxes but come on it does not look like an apple product. Either way Apple will kick their ass if they go to court. Psystar probably should take not that apple has a spare 18.5 billion sitting around waiting to be spent. Good luck at trial.

Even if these guys were to get away with it, which I can't imagine they will, I'm not sure they would take much business away from Apple. I don't think anybody that was going to buy a Macbook would suddenly change their minds and buy one of these things. The harm would come from having OSX associated with junky hardware

@Nobama

"Risky risky risky"

No, I wouldn't buy either.

AFAIK, these aren't _that_ much cheaper if you add in all the extras. Doubtless you would save money and, while Apple's margins are pretty healthy, these people would have had to cut their margins to do that. So what level of customer service would you be getting? It wouldn't take many calls to customer service for their margin to be eaten up -- which is why the quality of customer service from Dell and the likes has gone down and down and finally been offshored.

Anyone want a bet that Psystar's customer service know less about OS X than Dell's customer service do about Windows? What are they going to tell you if you've got problems? Google it?

Their response to updates is to say:

Can I run updates on my OpenMac?

The answer is yes and no. No because there are some updates that are decidedly non-safe. Yes because most updates are not non-safe. It’s best to check on InsanelyMac for this information but when in doubt don’t update it. You may have to reinstall your OS X if it is a non-safe update.

http://daringfireball.net/linked/2008/april#mon-14-openmac

Gee, how reassuring.

How do pronounce that awful name Psystar... Sister? Pisster?

Apr 15, 08 - 03:40 pm Comment from: eMax

Even if they can get around the EU agreement and legally sell them Apple doesn't have to support them. Who the hell is going to buy a computer that doesn't have support from the people that make the OS???????

Apr 15, 08 - 03:42 pm Comment from: eMax

@ Columbus...


OSX is an intellectual Property and a product supported and created by Apple inc.

Oil is a natural resource. There is no comparison.

Apr 15, 08 - 03:43 pm Comment from: Mac-nugget

I give this guys a week before they get shut down by Apple legal. Hell they went after the City of New York for using their logo.

Apr 15, 08 - 03:47 pm Comment from: Mac-nugget

I should have said using something that did not remotely resembled their logo.

This is interesting:

"... we thought we'd look further, because if the company's going to make these big claims about what it can do, why, that's interesting; but what sort of company is behind it?"

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/04/15/so_exactly_who_or_what_is_psystar_we_dig_a_little.html

People are better off spending $599 getting a nice Mac Mini (which looks a hell of a lot nicer than Psystar's system - IMHO) which also gets them a copy of iLife too. Plus they have piece of mind knowing they can apply software upgrades. This really is a no brainer.

The only thing I fault Apple on is not adverting the Mac Mini. It's a GREAT intro machine and is well engineered.

Peace.

Apr 15, 08 - 03:52 pm Comment from: effwerd

How do pronounce that awful name Psystar

You pronounce it "shyster."

Apr 15, 08 - 04:07 pm Comment from: HMCIV

Is this proper use of a phrase? "Tilting at windmills" implies that Apple is a silly target. (Although our Quixotic friend Psystar is certainly silly.)

Psystar = VAPORWARE!

These so called "OpenMac" systems will never see the light of day. It's just a publicity stunt and nothing more.

Apr 15, 08 - 04:13 pm Comment from: John E

sorry guys, but i'm pro-consumer first, not pro-Apple profits. if Psytar or another company makes a good piece of hardware that runs OS X properly, and sells it at a better price, that is good for everyone. there is no question Apple marks up the price of the Mini a lot. and if you want to add RAM, you pay through the nose - pure profiteering by Apple.

of course Apple will not provide technical to support them, and that's fair too. the legal issues of monopoly, restraint of trade, and patents, etc. will get resolved by the courts.

how can it be righteous that Apple can create Boot Camp to run Windows on Macs, and yet be wrong that someone else creates a way to run OS X on a white box? there is no moral difference.

Why would anyone buy this if it is not supported by Apple? I don't want to start a flame throwing war here, but let us just say that an update comes out that bricks the psystar computer, what do you do then? Who do you turn to? And would this set off a Microsoft-type brooha about monopolies?

I'm guessing it's "SIGH-star"...

"how can it be righteous that Apple can create Boot Camp to run Windows on Macs, and yet be wrong that someone else creates a way to run OS X on a white box? there is no moral difference."

You seem to be fuzzy on the concept of ownership of copyright, and selling a license under a set of terms.

Apple does not offer OS X for non-Apple hardware.

-jcr

oh man, wouldnt that be the shit if the government forced apple to sell OSX OEM.... that would sooooooooo ROCK - of course apple will defend that it will water down the osx brand blah blah blah....

I want osx on a standard comptuer

What kind of idiot would want OSX on anything but an Apple Mac? That's the whole point of the Apple experience.. they made the whole GOD DAMN WIDGET you putz.

Am I missing something? I've already seen several stories that "defiant" Psystar is back online and "continuing to fight against Apple," but I've yet to see any stories that say what if anything Apple has done in response to Psystar's claims or that claim Apple rather than Psystar's own incompetence was behind yesterday's outage.

So far it seems a very one-sided fight—as in only one side is fighting.

Apr 15, 08 - 05:14 pm Comment from: qka

Answers.com - now there's definitive legal advice.

Not!

Apr 15, 08 - 05:32 pm Comment from: TowerTone

Columbus
Sounds like you missed the boat....
....to Realityville.

Apr 15, 08 - 05:35 pm Comment from: effwerd

I want osx on a standard comptuer

And you can, it's called a Mac.

I understand that many retards are confused by facts but, for the most part, the law operates on facts insofar as it is possible given the circumstances. And in this circumstance, the facts are rather clear. Apple does not have a monopoly in the personal computer market. If you don't feel Apple delivers a fair product at a fair price, you are not excluded from purchasing another personal computer from another manufacturer. The fact that no other manufacturer has the rights to deliver a personal computer running OS X is due to the fact that Apple owns OS X and can choose to do with it as it sees fit. In the same vein, Apple does not have a monopoly on computer operating systems so none of these other manufacturers are excluded from participating in the personal computer market because they have other viable avenues. The fact that you may want a non-Apple product to run Apple's OS X is a testament to Apple's strategy but it is by no means a legal justification for regulatory action to compel Apple to satisfy your vapid whims and your spoiled sense of entitlement.

Finally, and to make this completely clear: it is a circular argument to say "Apple has a monopoly in Macs." As has been said many times here and elsewhere, that is the same as saying Sony has a monopoly in Playstations. Or Microsoft has a monopoly in Xboxes. Or Apple has a monopoly in iPods.

@ John E

"sorry guys, but i'm pro-consumer first, not pro-Apple profits. if Psytar or another company makes a good piece of hardware that runs OS X properly, and sells it at a better price, that is good for everyone. there is no question Apple marks up the price of the Mini a lot. and if you want to add RAM, you pay through the nose - pure profiteering by Apple."

This isn't a matter of pro-consumer or pro-Apple. The issue is that Psystar is violating Apple's intellectual property rights. Apple is absolutely under NO obligation to allow other companies to run OS X on their hardware. It's Apple's OS not Psystar's period. No ifs, ands or buts. If you were truly pro-consumer, you'd understand that Apple needs those profits not just to continue to succeed as a company, but to also to be able to afford the continued improvement of OS X as well as their other products. It's been said time and time again, Apple is a hardware company not a software company. They don't make money from software so if they allow companies like Psystar to undercut their hardware business, it's bye-bye hardware business. Where would OS X be then? Besides, where is it written in stone that EVERYTHING HAS TO BE CHEAP? That only serves to devalue everything.


"how can it be righteous that Apple can create Boot Camp to run Windows on Macs, and yet be wrong that someone else creates a way to run OS X on a white box? there is no moral difference."

The moral difference is that MS licenses Windows to run on ANY hardware and Apple only licenses its OS on Apple hardware. They have every right to do that and no one has the right to tell them otherwise. It's Apple's OS, it's not public property.

Psystar sounds like an STD.

hi im a poor peasant, my last pc has bitten the dust and id really like to buy a computer with os x on it as i know that its by far the easiest to use and most powerful operating system out there, unfortunately i can't afford to buy an apple mac as they dont seem to cater for anybody below middle class thus excluding the most vulnerable people in society like me and therefore those that would benefit most from os x's ease of use. Looks like I will have to buy another windows desktop and continue looking up at steve jack throwing stones at me out of his ivory tower, oh steve jack how are you so wise

i would imagine that any company doing a psystar in europe, would have a strong chance of winning its battle as my understanding of european law has made me realise that the apple branded machine only clause is likely to be unenforceable in european law.

Apr 15, 08 - 05:57 pm Comment from: drmacnut

Thanks effwerd. That was well put!

Apr 15, 08 - 05:59 pm Comment from: British Mac Head

@jcr,

There is a huge difference.

Microsoft don't build computers so their model is OEM right out of the box. Apple build computers and their unique selling point for those computers is that they come with their very own OS. And it's a way better OS than Windows. (Shut up Zune Tang!)

If you sell OS X as an OEM OS you take away that unique selling point.

So if you are saying that selling OSs OEM stylee is the standard way to do it you're wrong. It's just the MS way to do it and Linux and a few others just jumped on the band wagon. Until MS licensed Windows, operating systems were unique to the computer they were designed for and nobody sold one to stick on anyone's hardware (think Apple II, Sinclair, Commodore, Tangerine, Acorn et al!). If we could go back to that model but have open-standards based file formats then the computing world would be way better as there would be far more choice and far more innovation to compete. It's MS's OEM licensing model that has made personal computing progress at a snale's pace.

Why innovate when you have the market all sewn up?

Apple have always kept ahead of MS with innovation (at least since Steve came back) but don't you think they would have done even more if there were say 10 - 15 different people competing to sell the most desirable computers with their own powerful and unique OSs on board.

What I am hoping for is for Apple to just ignore PsyStar for a while and see how popular these OpenComputers are (market research). Then when they realise whether enough people want a bare bones upgradable Mac they drop one on PsyStar and bring out their own. If they charge a couple of hundred more for them and use better components I am sure people would clammer for them.

The blood sweat and tears and development expense incurred by Apple to develop OS X (not to mention the cost of buying NeXT was so Apple can sell their computers with something on them way better than Windows or Mac OS 9. PsyStar have donated zilch into that R & D budget and personally I think it is atrocious that they are blatantly attempting to benefit from it.

If Apple want to license one day that's their right. You shouldn't steal.

Apr 15, 08 - 06:02 pm Comment from: feral

pisstars' asking for trouble...and getting free publicity
the crux of the matter is support
maybe one of the many blog iGeniuseses could get a job with them as tech support/designer/legal advisor/?
marketing/hype/bullshitter vp seems to be taken...

Apr 15, 08 - 06:05 pm Comment from: Jubei

"The blood sweat and tears and development expense incurred by Apple to develop OS X (not to mention the cost of buying NeXT was so Apple can sell their computers with something on them way better than Windows or Mac OS 9. PsyStar have donated zilch into that R & D budget and personally I think it is atrocious that they are blatantly attempting to benefit from it.

If Apple want to license one day that's their right. You shouldn't steal."


Bloodsucking leaches! Get the rope!

hiya british mac head, just a quick thing, psystar buyers still have to give money to apple no by buying a copy of os x?

i was just wondering if sony could argue that their music cds must only be used with their cd players? their content, their right no?

and yes a mac clone is likely to be legal in europe, as you have the right to use a product in what ever way you wish as long as its not being pirated there would be nothing to stop anyone.

Apr 15, 08 - 06:11 pm Comment from: British Mac Head

@Jubei

I guess I did get on my soap box a little didn't I

OK. Try this one on for size:

PsyStar sucks. Get a Mac!

That better?

BMH

@The Mac That Roared.
"Besides, where is it written in stone that EVERYTHING HAS TO BE CHEAP? That only serves to devalue everything. "

Nicely put.

Also, thanks for making the point. How can a 8% market share OS be competitive, let alone better? Because Apple has a business model that allows it generous revenues and profits from that share.

Like I said, change the business model and you'll change the Mac.

Weird day when I am saying: Why don't the trolls just shut up and use Windows?

And the answer is: They want a mac experience. They also want to steal it. Theives go away.

Same argument I had 25 years ago with the "software should cost $5.00 because that is the cost of the disk" idiots.

Actually I am wrong to tell them to use Windows. They should use Linux. Linux is free. Linux is the result of a collective not-for-profit effort. I was wrong 25 years ago. It turns out software can be free. Go use your free OS. And STFU.

===

btw, does anybody REALLY believe that these machines will be ordered with Leopard pre-installed. Isn't it more likely that they will be ordered sans OS and Leopard will be borrowed?

Apr 15, 08 - 06:12 pm Comment from: MacLovin

wtf tt? that has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard! The whole point of buying a mac, is that you don't have to worry about it breaking down! You call apple support if something does break down, and they know all the hardware you're running! Where as with OS X on any "whitebox", you have no way of getting support, since there is an infinite number of hardware configurations... Thats (yet another) reason why Winblows blows...

@feral

wow i think you have hit the nail on the head, i have been wondering what kind of contemptable hype marketing bullshitter could be behind psystar.......steve jack thats where you've been!

Apr 15, 08 - 06:31 pm Comment from: British Mac Head

@moochoo,
"just a quick thing, psystar buyers still have to give money to apple no by buying a copy of os x?"

Sounds a fair point on the surface, However OS X is developed with one thing in mind, to sell Macs. Otherwise Apple could kill OS X and just license Windows Vista like anyone else. Also OS X is not actually media it's the OS. It makes the whole widget work.

So your Sony analogy is flawed, sorry.

Here's one that works:
How about say if Honda develop their own upgradable software based engine management system that is years ahead of any one else's right. And you can buy the upgrades off the net and from Honda dealers yeah.

So this little tin pot start up reverse engineers the box that goes into the new Hondas and figures out how to tie that box into their own little car they have made.

And even though there is a similar but pretty crap system out there they can already use they just decide to go into a Honda dealers and buy a load of licences of this software upgrade and then sell it blatantly pre-installed in their own boxes. Therefore devaluing the hard work and expense Honda put into making theirs the best on the planet.

Honda clearly make their profits from selling the cars and the money they get from the upgrades barely pays the R & D costs of that software.

Now that is exactly what PsyStar did and some of you think stealing Apple's R & D to sell their own product is OK.

Emmm. Strange ethics some of you have, think again you should!!!


Also remember that Apple make a better OS than MS do but charge way less for it. So it obviously makes them zero profit. If you take away the Mac sales you can kiss good bye to OS X and any New Macs. That's why SPJ knocked licensing on the head.

Apr 15, 08 - 06:45 pm Comment from: British Mac Head

Actually here is an idea (probably a bad one).

OK, can any of you make an educated guess how many times OS X is better than Windows vista Ultimate taking into consideration security, stability, ease of use, visually etc etc and give me a figure. We can then take Vista ultimate's selling price and multiply that by this figure that you guys come up with and call it the OEM price for Leopard. However, real mac users with licenses to prove it get Leopard at the current (Apple subsidised) price it is now for an upgrade to a real Mac.

I think that's pretty fair don't you?

hiya british mac head, i think you incorrectly had me down as anti mac and that i was trolling, you mac people are far too paranoid

My initial point was that apple charge a fee for that software, that they consider as a fair value (i know it is subsidised by the hardware really) but in european court its possible a judge will rule that non mac owners will be able to use os x at a slightly higher price that adequately reflects the vaue of the r and d put into the product. This would have a good chance of happening if taken to court in Europe, sadly I have little knowledge of US law so I cant comment about there.

I wasnt trying to link my analogy to Apple sorry if it seemed that way, i was merely asking do you think by buying a sony music cd that you are buying a license to play the music and as such they could restrict you to playing said music on a sony branded cd player only, going off on a tangent i know.

whilst im not particularly a fan of the psystar outfit, there does need to be an affordable mac, apple achieved this with the ipod without diluting the brand, no one thinks the mac mini is good value for money do they? it feels like a token gesture poorly updated, underpowered and underadvertised.

a few questions for you

1)is anyone that says anything that may be regarded as doubting the genius of apple and that may challenge their business, a mac-tard troller as you seem to be saying?

2) do you think that macs should only be for the middle to upper classes? when surely the ease of use may help the poorly educated gain key skills quicker

3) do you think the mac mini is good value for money

4) do you think that having $18 billion in the bank may show that apple have been shall we say it over charging their customers, who refuse to believe that apple can do any wrong?

sorry this is an amalgamation of many things that i have read on this site this evening, and i should say question 4 most definitely applies to microsoft too

questioning apple is the right thing to do, we are all more intelligent than the lemming that is steve jack i would hope

Oh what an ugly box! I pay more for a Mac because I get more.

Apr 15, 08 - 07:48 pm Comment from: British Mac Head

Hey moochoo it's cool. I didn't think you were trolling or anti-mac. Debates are always from two sides of an argument. That way you get at the facts and the truth.

European courts could well rule any way they want but as Apple are not actually guilty of a monopoly or the abuse thereof I think they would find in favour of Apple. All I believe Apple would have to do to prove their right to use their intellectual property as they see fit is to prove that the innovations they have achieved over the years are down to the profit achieved due to the exclusivity of their business model and that there would be little innovation afforded by them if they changed that model to a more MS like model. All you need do really is compare how innovative MS has been with Window's security, ease of use, features, debugging, etc compared to how much Apple have done with OS X and the case is closed. At least I think that's all they need do but I am no lawyer.

And on the Mac Mini front. I think they are great. I have one I use as a file server/intranet server. It's just a CoreDuo model but it was cheap and legally runs OS X.

Anyway. Everyone knows Dell and other cheapo box suppliers only make the cheap (loss leaders) to make up the numbers and get new customers. These cheapo boxes last a couple of years tops and barely hold a single OS upgrade. We all know OS X has a far leaner base system footprint than Vista Ultimate (it's nearest MS comparison OS) so really buying a completely underpowered OS X system is not an option in the Mac world but how many people bought Mac Mini spec PCs to run Vista and found them to be too low spec to work? Loads of them I'm guessing?

The base fact is a basic bottom range Mini will happily run Leopard and third party software with no hitches. I am running Leopard on a 1.2 Ghz G4 iMac and it will also handle Photoshop. That's way lower spec than a base Mac Mini. But put Vista Ultimate on a Mac Mini and it will crawl.

Here's another simile for you.

A Ford Explorer is a tank of a car. It has a 4.0 litre V6 engine in it and it performs about as well as a basic Ford Mondeo 2 litre. Now this is obviously because of the massive weight of the vehicle slowing it down. So if we said. You have to have a V6 4.0 litre engine in a mondeo or it's just plain underpowered we would obviously be wrong. But if we said the same of the Explorer we would be right no? Now let's think for a minute that Vista weighs 2 tons of compiled code and OS X weighs 1 ton of fully compiled code then a PC needs to be 4 Ghz to run vista and a Mac needs to be only 2 Ghz to run OS X. So by that standard a 2Ghz Mac Mini Running OS X is about as fast as a 4Ghz PC running a fully loaded Vista Ultimate c/w anti malware security and a firewall etc.

When you look at a car you don't just look at the engine you look at the actual performance, economy features and looks of the whole vehicle.

I know this is not that well explained but it's a proven fact that Vista uses way more system resources just to function.

I hope I am making sense here.

if Macs cost four times as much as similarly configured Windows PCs, no one would buy them."

MacDailyNews Take: We certainly would (we'd just keep our Macs in service even longer than we do now).

steve, steve, steve, a fool and his money are easily parted, you need help you really do, id like to tease you mercifully but i actually feel sorry for you, you'd quite happily fuck a mac if you could wouldnt you, ah even children .........................................................i can see it now.........................................little apple jacks running around everywhere

Just three words with regards to this "clone"... Crap De Pola...

Apr 15, 08 - 08:04 pm Comment from: British Mac Head

@@yet another steve
1) No absolutely not they are all entitled to their opinions as are the Mac faithful. However. Apple seem to be making desirable products and have happy customers so surely they are doing something right.

2) Who said that? I am in the bracket of working to lower middle class as in I have academic skills but not that much cash in the bank, however I happily buy Macs and often reconditioned last year models as long as I get a warranty. Nobody really needs to get the latest models. it's just a personal obsession for a few to do so isn't it?

3) As OS X requires a far smaller system spec to function happily you cannot directly compare Apples to any other PC that is running Vista or even XP. So taking that in mind I think the Mac Mini is great value. After all it is tiny and has a great build quality too. Also it has Wifi/Bluetooth2 and loads of USB ports and firewire out of the box. Put these into your cheap PC box and see the price go up. then add iLife equivalent software, a subscription to a good anti virus system and the mini is a bargain.

Also Apple's $18bn in the bank allows Mac users to breathe easily knowing Apple has enough cash to further develop OS X and expand the company keeping Apple alive to allow us choices instead of having to use MS or Linux (not that I think Linux is bad but it is still immature as a desktop environment).